Reported: Susan Rice unmasked names caught up in surveillance

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, when an official asks for names to be unmasked, I assume that they need to give a reason for such a request. And, rationale for that reason.
Rice can clear all this up by testifying as to why such a request was made.
Will she testify? Or, will she take “the 5th" like Lois Lerner and others in this administration?

To be honest, Susan Rice has no credibility with me or millions of other Americans. Her lies regarding Benghazi and her words about Bergdahl have exposed her as untrustworthy.

Agree. I don't see any benefits from her testimony since she lost all her credibility.

She could explain a lot. I suspect the admin does not want her to. And she definitely has credibility with me.

Can you explain how do you consider her credible if exactly two weeks ago she stated that "she knew “nothing about” surveillance allegations". Now we are finding out that she not only knew about the surveillance, but took some pro-active steps in it. How is it credible?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

How much time and money was spent on Benghazi hearings only to discover that no one did anything wrong?

No one being charged and no one doing anything wrong are two different things.

Fact: Rice lied.

And not once. And she is lying again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, what is your understanding of what "unmasked" means in this instance? Did she publicly state who the American citizens were? Does the president's National Security Advisor not have the legal right to ask for the identification of people who are on transcripts talking to foreign agents under surveillance? Please clarify.

My understanding is that “unmasked” means requesting the names of American citizens become named. Not to the public, but to those with the clearance to see such information (and, my understanding is also that Obama made it possible for more people to see those names than previously permitted). My understanding, from several people who are knowledgeable on this subject, is that unmasking is not very common. Yes, Rice would have that ability (per Comey’s testimony last month).

My questions have been, and still are, what were her reasons for requesting the names to be unmasked? What was her rationale? And, how many names did she make such a request for? And, what did she do with that information?

And, finally, who exactly leaked Flynn’s name? While you may think it is great that he was named, I don’t. I do believe the information that was discovered about Flynn should have been reported to the Trump administration, I don’t believe his name should have been leaked to the press. This is a serious crime and sets a very serious precedent.

I think she better come up with some legitimate reason. For everyone who thinks what she did is legal: it is legal only if there were some specific reasons (like national security) for unmasking. So far, there is no evidence of that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How much time and money was spent on Benghazi hearings only to discover that no one did anything wrong?

No one being charged and no one doing anything wrong are two different things.

Fact: Rice lied.

And not once. And she is lying again.

On March 22, 2017 Rice said:

“I know nothing about this,” Rice said at the time. “I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that count today … So today, I really don’t know to what Chairman Nunes was referring. But he said that whatever he was referring to was a legal, lawful surveillance and that it was potentially incidental collection on American citizens.”

How anyone can find her credible after this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How much time and money was spent on Benghazi hearings only to discover that no one did anything wrong?

No one being charged and no one doing anything wrong are two different things.

Fact: Rice lied.

And not once. And she is lying again.

On March 22, 2017 Rice said:

“I know nothing about this,” Rice said at the time. “I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that count today … So today, I really don’t know to what Chairman Nunes was referring. But he said that whatever he was referring to was a legal, lawful surveillance and that it was potentially incidental collection on American citizens.”

How anyone can find her credible after this?

Honestly, nobody knows what Nunes was talking about. Every time he spoke, he said something contradicting what he'd said before.

[Anonymous]

Rice is being interviewed by Andrea Mitchell at this moment. She knew nothing about what Nunes was talking about and she has denied leaking anything at all to anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How much time and money was spent on Benghazi hearings only to discover that no one did anything wrong?

No one being charged and no one doing anything wrong are two different things.

Fact: Rice lied.

And not once. And she is lying again.

On March 22, 2017 Rice said:

“I know nothing about this,” Rice said at the time. “I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that count today … So today, I really don’t know to what Chairman Nunes was referring. But he said that whatever he was referring to was a legal, lawful surveillance and that it was potentially incidental collection on American citizens.”

How anyone can find her credible after this?

Honestly, nobody knows what Nunes was talking about. Every time he spoke, he said something contradicting what he'd said before.

If you have no idea what Nunes was talking about it doesn't mean that nobody knew. There are plenty of people who are aware what was he talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How much time and money was spent on Benghazi hearings only to discover that no one did anything wrong?

No one being charged and no one doing anything wrong are two different things.

Fact: Rice lied.

And not once. And she is lying again.

On March 22, 2017 Rice said:

“I know nothing about this,” Rice said at the time. “I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that count today … So today, I really don’t know to what Chairman Nunes was referring. But he said that whatever he was referring to was a legal, lawful surveillance and that it was potentially incidental collection on American citizens.”

How anyone can find her credible after this?

Remind me again, what is she supposedly lying about?

From Fox News (where I am assuming you got your information)
Rice told PBS on March 22 that she “was not aware of any orders given to disseminate that information.” She did skirt the issues of whether she herself unmasked or disseminated information outright. Rice also limited her remarks to Trump’s debunked early March tweet claiming a wiretap of Trump Tower and vague remarks made by House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes.
“I know nothing about this,” Rice said at the time. “I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that count today … So today, I really don’t know to what Chairman Nunes was referring. But he said that whatever he was referring to was a legal, lawful surveillance and that it was potentially incidental collection on American citizens.”

She was referring to lawful surveillance. Why aren't you concerned about the larger picture of INAPPROPRIATE contact with PEOPLE under surveillance (FISA warrants)?

[Anonymous]

Because it didn't happen. You are falling prey to Russian disinformation via Trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Oh and shut up about Benghazi. It was investigated and it's over. We've moved on to a brand new scandal that affects the whole institution of democracy.

That's for sure. Spying on your political foes reeks of Watergate. Except, that our last administration was using "legal" means to do it. Very scary.

No sorry. The threat to our democracy is Trump and his team colluding with Russia to throw the election. You're a tool OP. Educate yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How much time and money was spent on Benghazi hearings only to discover that no one did anything wrong?

No one being charged and no one doing anything wrong are two different things.

Fact: Rice lied.

And not once. And she is lying again.

On March 22, 2017 Rice said:

“I know nothing about this,” Rice said at the time. “I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that count today … So today, I really don’t know to what Chairman Nunes was referring. But he said that whatever he was referring to was a legal, lawful surveillance and that it was potentially incidental collection on American citizens.”

How anyone can find her credible after this?

Honestly, nobody knows what Nunes was talking about. Every time he spoke, he said something contradicting what he'd said before.

If you have no idea what Nunes was talking about it doesn't mean that nobody knew. There are plenty of people who are aware what was he talking about.

Did you listen to each of the times he spoke? He was talking nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How much time and money was spent on Benghazi hearings only to discover that no one did anything wrong?

No one being charged and no one doing anything wrong are two different things.

Fact: Rice lied.

And not once. And she is lying again.

On March 22, 2017 Rice said:

“I know nothing about this,” Rice said at the time. “I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that count today … So today, I really don’t know to what Chairman Nunes was referring. But he said that whatever he was referring to was a legal, lawful surveillance and that it was potentially incidental collection on American citizens.”

How anyone can find her credible after this?

Honestly, nobody knows what Nunes was talking about. Every time he spoke, he said something contradicting what he'd said before.

If you have no idea what Nunes was talking about it doesn't mean that nobody knew. There are plenty of people who are aware what was he talking about.

Did you listen to each of the times he spoke? He was talking nonsense.

And, yet, when Adam Schiff saw the same information as Nunes, did he issue a comment that it was nothing? That the information was questionable?
Nope. His only comment was about the process, yet again. One would think that if this information was a “big nothing-burger,” Schiff would have made a comment to that effect.

[Anonymous]

He did say it was a nothing burger.

[Anonymous]

Leave it to the Trump camp to use a black woman as the boogeyman.

[Anonymous]

So we've gone from Trump lied about being under surveillance to its no big deal in less than two weeks.